x402 Bazaar

proxy_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Can this contract be changed under you? — Reads the EIP-1967 proxy slots live: is the contract upgradeable, what's the current implementation, and WHO can upgrade it. Flags the dangerous case — an EOA admin that can swap the logic at any block with no timelock/multisig. Upgradeability is a rug vector static scans miss. Required input: address. Priced $0.03 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, or get 1 free call/day per tool. No wallet or API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Contract address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above."New value: +"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```
AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the check is live, inspects EIP-1967 slots, and flags EOA-admin proxies with no timelock/multisig. It also states auth requirements (no wallet or API key) and pricing/free-tier behavior, which are useful operational details not visible in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key capability and dangerous case are front-loaded, followed by concise input, pricing, and auth details. The rhetorical opening frames the threat model, and every sentence serves either selection or invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since an output schema already exists, return format does not need to be described. The description covers purpose, mechanism, risk signal, required input, chain/pricing context, and auth requirements, which is complete for an agent to select and call this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers the address parameter at 100%, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that the address is the required contract input and by indicating the operation happens on Base, chain context not present in the schema. More explicit address format rules would be stronger, but this is adequate for a single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific live operation: reading EIP-1967 proxy slots to determine upgradeability, current implementation, and upgrade authority. It also flags the dangerous EOA-admin case, which clearly differentiates it from generic contract or risk tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly frames when to use it: to check whether a contract can be changed, and explains that upgradeability is a rug vector static scans miss. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All x402 Bazaar tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Despite excellent per-tool descriptions, the set contains many near-overlapping tools: rug_score, batch_risk, pre_trade_gate, and deep_dd all assess token risk; wallet_portfolio, wallet_networth, and wallet_tokens all list balances; b20_safety, b20_gate, and b20_dossier overlap heavily; url_extract, web_extract, ai_extract, and url_to_json also blur boundaries. An agent would struggle to consistently pick the right tool without reading every description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun (token_price, rug_score, address_trust, file_convert, safe_to_send). Minor deviations: noun-only names like holders, basename, deep_dd, business_days, and new_tokens, plus the abbreviation deep_dd, slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is far beyond the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even as a marketplace bazaar, this is an enormous, unwieldy surface where many tools overlap and each contributes only a sliver of unique value.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent purpose — a pay-per-call bazaar covering on-chain analysis, wallet intelligence, token due diligence, plus generic text/web/finance utilities — the surface is extensive and covers most read-only workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no historical price series, no swap execution, no true on-chain write actions), but the set is not severely incomplete for its stated niche.

Resources

Need Help?